Facts: Application for judicial review of the decision of the Crown Court dismissing an appeal against the conviction of the applicants by the Magistrates’ Court for failure to comply with the requirements of an abatement notice Notice related to noise from a public house adjacent to a residential flat Notice required the applicants to: "Exercise such effective control over the volume of sound produced from within the licensed premises so that on any day: (i) No nuisance from noise from any amplified live or recorded musical entertainment or the use of any public address system or other use of sound amplifying equipment is caused to the occupier or occupiers of any adjoining or neighbouring residential accommodation, and (ii) The sound pressure level of noise from the playing of live or recorded amplified music or the use of the public address system or other use of sound amplifying equipment, when measured at a distance of 2 (Two) metres from any speaker shall not exceed 75 dB LAeq (1 minute) slow response." The local authority environmental health officers had installed and set a compressor to ensure that the sound system did not exceed 75dBA measured 2 metres from the speakers The compressor had been set by two officers, one in the basement of the pub and the other in the flat above it A seal had been placed on the compressor though there was conflicting evidence as to the extent to which the seal would allow access to the compressor to allow it to be reset to allow noise in excess of 75dBA Summonses alleged a failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the abatement notice Applicants convicted in magistrates’ court The Crown Court dismissed their appeal It found that the compressor had been bypassed in some way and that the sound system was operating in excess of 75dBA at the relevant time had the sound system been operating at below 75dBA there would not have been a nuisance The Crown Court decision was challenged in the High Court on three grounds: 1. The notice was invalid because the means of avoiding the nuisance were not adequately specified (for example, the notice did not state where the amplifier should be positioned in relation to the ducts or otherwise) or because the means themselves were not adequate to abate the nuisance 2. The Crown Court’s conclusions were either unsupported by evidence or were not explained with sufficient reasons 3. The "best practicable means" defence had been summarily dismissed without reasons

• the notice required the noise level to be no greater than a specified level (75dBA) when measured from 2 metres from a particular position
• the abatement notice left the choice of means of compliance to the recipient
• it did not require steps to be taken or works to be done
• having left the choice of means of compliance to the recipient, no greater specificity in relation to works or steps was required (Seven Oaks DC v Brands Hatch Leisure Group Ltd (DC, 8^th May 2000, unreported); R v Falmouth & Truro Port Health Authority ex parte South West Water [2000] 3 All ER 306 applied)

• it was accepted that no detailed reasons were in fact given
• on the facts, the Crown Court had reached a conclusion on whether there was a nuisance on the occasions alleged in the summonses
• there was evidence before the Crown Court which supported those conclusions
• there had been conflicting evidence before the Crown Court on these issues and on how the nuisance may have been caused
• for example, there was evidence about the moving of the speakers which may or may not have been of relevance, there were discrepancies in notebook records, reports and other evidence, and whilst some evidence suggested the compressor had been tampered with other evidence suggested that it had not been
• it was necessary for the Crown Court to give some analysis of the conflicting evidence and the basis for reaching the conclusions which were in fact reached, in order to decide, on review, whether the conclusions reached were rational (R v Harrow Crown Court, Ex parte Dave [1994] 99 Cr App R 114; Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd.[1991] 1 WLR 153, at 166F per Lord Bridge of Harwich; R v Inner London Crown Court, Ex parte London Borough of Lambeth (DC), 7^th December 1999); Hadjianastassiou v Greece [1992] 16 EHRR 219).
• These reasons were required by common law, Art 6 ECHR, and in the interests of fairness
• no such analysis was given and it was impossible to know the route by which the Crown Court had reached its conclusions
• accordingly the judgment would be quashed
• there was therefore no need to reach a conclusion on the third ground of challenge

Return to home page